MINUTES
Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
March 31, 2006
USGS Building #3
2255 N Gemini Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, Coconino County
Deb Hill, Coconino County
Joe Haughey, City of Flagstaff
John Kocjan, City of Page
Eunice Tso, Navajo Nation
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Joe Alston, Grand Canyon National Park
Palma Wilson, Flagstaff Area Monuments
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Bill Linville, Doney Park Water
Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Chairman Liz Archuleta opened the meeting at 10:10 and announced that item #6 on the agenda was being cancelled as Greg Houtz was not able to attend, the item will be rescheduled.
Following introductions, Liz welcomed Lisa McNeilly as the new representative from The Nature Conservancy. Eunice introduced Lena Fowler, who is taking her seat as the Western Agency Representative on the Water Rights Commission, and will be taking Eunice’s seat on the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council as well.
The next item was approval of the minutes from the December 9 and January 27 WAC meetings. Brenda Smith noted that she was not in attendance at the January 27 meeting and asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect that. The minutes for both meetings were approved as submitted, with the one change noted by Brenda Smith.
Liz stated that the next item on the agenda was at the request of Joe Alston, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent, and Palma Wilson, Superintendent of the Flagstaff Area Monuments. Their request is to remain on the Council as non-voting members. Liz said that in the future she felt it would be appropriate to just have one meeting a year where these types of requests could be considered, and asked Palma to explain the reason for the request.
Palma stated that she and Joe felt that their situations were different from other Federal interests represented on the Council, since they represent actual landholdings (Grand Canyon National Park and Flagstaff Area Monuments). She said that they had discussed this with the solicitor and his direction was that they be fully active but not be voting members. She said that she and Joe are both committed to the partnership and will be part of the council and participate in discussions.
Deb Hill raised a concern that she thought it was important that the park service have a presence and representation in discussion and action. Palma Wilson noted that there was precedence with the Glenn Canyon National Monument being a non-voting member.
Liz Archuleta said she had previously expressed her concern regarding how this could affect their participation and was hesitant to support making them non-voting members, but she would like to honor their request particularly since it was at the direction of their solicitor.
Deb said she was concerned this would become a trend for other federal agencies.
Palma said that Nora Rasure, Supervisor for the Coconino National Forest, did not see it as a problem and intended to remain a voting member. Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, also felt she would stay a voting member.
Tom Whitmer, ADWR, noted that in other partnerships federal agencies have remained active, and noted that the park service is a voting member in the Upper San Pedro Partnership.
Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust, said the reasoning could support the opposite decision, that since they oversee discrete lands that could be impacted by the decisions and plans made by the WAC they should maintain voting membership.
Liz said that in the future these requests will only be brought before the Council once a year in March. The motion to change Grand Canyon National Park and Flagstaff Area Monuments to non-voting members was passed b y the council with one abstention (Nikolai Ramsey).
The next item on the agenda was a presentation by Barry Baker on Tusayan’s current and future water demands. Barry began his presentation by stating that Tusayan consists of 144 acres of land surrounded by the Kaibab National Forest, he said that approximately 60% or 86 acres are currently developed. 22 acres are in residential, 20 in commercial, and 20 +/- are in floodplain and presumably will remain undeveloped. He said that the Grand Canyon Unified School District was in the process of securing 80 acres of National Forest land through the federal government for a future school site, but there would be no housing or commercial development.
Barry said that the 1990 census counted 555 people and the 2000 census 562, for the addition of 7 people in 10 years. He said that the 2006 count is somewhere around 570. He said that there is no available housing or land, and that there are 8 private homes in the community. He said that most of the park housing is found in Woodland Ranch, Valle, Red Lake, Williams, Ash Fork, and Flagstaff. He said that the population projections of 1400 people by 2050 are optimistic, as there is no housing for that many people.
Barry said there are currently 1034 hotel rooms in Tusayan, and noted that the demolition of the housing and hotel facilities at Moqui Lodge was significant to the community. He said that there is competition from the West Rim which his affecting room rentals in Tusayan and the South Rim.
Barry said that any water used in Tusayan flows into the South Grand Canyon Sanitary District facilities, so it is easy to monitor. He noted that of the 59 million gallons used in 2005, 30 million were potable from Tusayan, 3.4 million were potable from the Grand Canyon National Park Airport (GCNP), 320 thousand gallons were hauled water, an estimated 1 million gallons from the Kaibab National Forest compound; and, 24.3 million were recycled reclaimed water. Barry noted that Tusayan has the highest per capita use of reclaimed water in the County.
As far as the infrastructure, Barry said that there are 3 wells in Tusayan with storage of just under 4 million gallons. He said that TWDA has held the certificate of convenience and necessity since 1979. There are two private water companies, Anasazi Water Company and Hydro Resources, which own the wells and distribution system, and they sell to TWDA which in turns sells to the customers.
He said that the Grand Canyon National Park Airport has its own reclaimed water system.
Barry said that the Grand Canyon National Park sold water to Tusayan during some months in 1971 and 1972, but denied sales later in the 1970’s because they determined that other sources were available. He noted that there was special legislation passed by Congress allowing the Secretary of the Interior to provide park resources, in this case water, outside of the park boundary for one year or less and with the provision that it is revocable by the Secretary at any time. Barry mentioned that the law has subsequently been modified to require an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) prior to any future sales, and that Tusayan would be required to pay for that. Barry said that Tusayan would like to re-visit this and to make it more flexible. He said they understand the concerns with pumping groundwater from the existing wells, but without changes to the statutes they have little choice.
Barry said that the 2000-2001 potable water use was 31 million gallons, so last year they used one million gallons less. He pointed out that 2005 was a banner year for business, so the reason for the decreased use of potable water was the increase use of reclaimed water.
For the future, Barry said they will continue to increase water conservation, expand the reclaimed system to residential, and increase their storage capacity.
Lisa McNeilly asked about housing related to the school. Barry said there are no plans for school housing currently but it is an issue that is being discussed. Nikolai commended Tusayan on being a model community for water conservation, and noted that to come up with an alternative solution to groundwater use will require federal involvement.
Deb Hill wanted to assure Barry that if there is a water emergency the County can assist, so they wouldn’t be without resources. Barry said that they do have a short term emergency plan in place with water hauling, bladder storage and pumps.
Tom Whitmer introduced Perri Benemelis, head of the ADWR Colorado River Management Section, who addressed the Council on matters related to the acquisition of Colorado River Water. Perri discussed shortage, transfers, and reallocation per the settlement act.
Perri began her presentation with an overview of how Colorado River water rights work, noting that they are federal rights. She explained the upper basin and lower basin states and allocations. Perri noted that prior to 1968 everyone was “even” but Arizona elected to take a junior status in that year in order to get the Central Arizona Project approved, after it had been blocked in Congress for 30 years. She said that the CAP takes 1.5 million acre feet to the Phoenix and Tucson areas.
In addressing the shortage issue Perri stated that the river is substantially over-allocated. She said that this didn’t matter for many years as it wasn’t used, but now they are bumping up against the allocation due to growth from new developments. She said it is a very serious matter, as it is over-allocated by 2-4 million acre feet for the entire Colorado River. She noted that population growth, drought, and over-allocation have resulted in some very serious discussions among the states. There have not been any shortage criteria in the past, but since one will be faced soon, it is now being discussed.
Perri noted that Arizona adopted a new transfer policy for lower basin transfer of rights. She said that the first one under consideration is the Cibola Irrigation District to Mohave County Water Authority, and an assignment to the Hopi Tribe. This policy is available on the ADWR web site (http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/). She said it includes a complicated accounting scheme to determine third party impacts including return flow to users, and the potential loss of this return flow.
The re-allocation of CAP water is part of the Arizona Water Settlement Act and involves approximately 95,000 acre feet, but action can’t be taken until 2010.
WAC needs to be familiar with the shortage plan as the modeling indicates that a shortage period could extend 10-15 years.
Senior rights are primarily agriculture, developed in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s (First in time, first in right) and Colorado River Tribes, which are not currently using their full allocations, but it requires Congressional authorization to move the water off tribal lands.
Perri said that ADWR is there to provide both legal and technical assistance to communities.
Tom Whitmer said that there is a possibility in the long term of obtaining some of the Colorado River used in Yuma. Perri said it is important to remember that it is very political to have discussions with the agricultural districts, noting that agricultural water will be needed to serve municipal needs.
Eunice asked for clarification on the role of ADWR since the Secretary of Interior has jurisdiction for tribal transfers. Perri said that there is a different role, but ADWR works closely with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Joe Leeper asked if ADWR has a preferred alternative that they will be recommending to the WAC. Perri said no. Tom said that ADWR is not trying to direct WAC, but wants to support their decision.
Deb Hill asked for information about the Mohave County Water Authority. It was formed sometime within the past 10 years to keep main stem rights in the County where it was allocated, they are able to hold contracts as an entity and sub-out to other entities in the area. There was discussion regarding the view Colorado River communities have toward CAP.
Liz asked Perri what the shortage planning includes. Perri said that it involves different shortage scenarios, key reservoir elevations in Lake Mead with stepped up action as Lake Mead elevation goes down. She said that all Colorado River Basin states have given tentative agreement, but it could change before it is finalized. She said that it will require a Record of Decision. She said that the Bureau of Reclamation is preparing an EIS for operation of reservoirs in shortage. In response to a question about tribal participation, Perri said that the tribes are not in the same junior position but they are tracking the process. John Leeper said that the Navajo Nation is extraordinarily concerned and have sent correspondence to that regard. Deb Hill requested John to bring a copy of the letter to the next meeting so the WAC could understand the Navajo Nation issues.
The next item on the agenda was an update on the Coconino Plateau Water Appraisal Study Report which was given by Kevin Black, Bureau of Reclamation. Kevin reviewed the status of several C-aquifer studies related to the Black Mesa Mine assessment. He then noted that the appraisal study had revised cost estimates for the four alternatives and that they were currently running economics and environmental analysis. In response to a question about timing for review and comments, Kevin said the next TAC meeting would be April 21. In regard to the cost estimates he noted that they have added info on additional costs for appraisal level cost estimates, but it does not include a cost/benefit analysis. Kevin said that the draft report of findings is schedule for completion by May 19 and would be presented to the Council at their June 30 meeting. In looking at the time line Deb requested that there be a longer review period for the Council. Liz suggested a joint meeting of the WAC and TAC. Kevin recommended having joint meetings in May and June on the dates of the regular WAC meetings (last Friday of the month).
The next two items on the agenda were reports from the Public Outreach and Government Affairs committees which held their first meetings just prior to the Council meeting. Chairman Archuleta thanked Deb Hill and Eunice Tso for agreeing to act as chairs for these two committees.
The first report was given by Deb Hill, chairman of the Public Outreach Committee (POC). She reported that the first order of business the committee was undertaking was to develop a charter which will focus on the importance of getting information out, public information efforts on water. She asked the Council if they wanted to create press releases of upcoming meetings, or in general what WAC is doing. After brief discussion the Council gave direction to the POC to work on notifying public of activities after meetings at this point, to inform the public of the WAC’s existence, and what they are working on. Deb said that the committee would hold its next meeting at 9 a.m. on Friday, April 28 prior to the next WAC meeting.
Eunice Tso reported next on the Government Affairs Committee meeting. Eunice said that the committee will be addressing the concerns with the ability/desire of the WAC to lobby state and federal legislators. Eunice reported that Tom Whitmer had attended the meeting and mentioned that there needed to be a formal letter sent from the WAC to the Bureau of Reclamation, notifying them that the appraisal level study is nearing its completion and that the Council wants to move forward to feasibility level study. Chairman Archuleta asked the Government Affairs Committee to draft that for consideration at the next WAC meeting.
The next agenda item was the legislative update presented by Tom Whitmer. Tom said that very few of the water bills currently under consideration will pass out of session. He mentioned a few that had a chance of continuing on, including one giving the ADWR Director authority to approve inter-basin transfers of groundwater under certain conditions; SB1249 addressing DWID’s overlapping into private water company CC&N area will require the County to hold a public hearing; SB1143 establish fund for failing/failed private water companies taken over by the Arizona Corporation Commission, and; SB2495 making it illegal to provide information related to private water providers, this being related homeland security.
Tom said that during the next 30 days there will be a statewide effort to draft legislation to create mechanism to create regional water management district, could be wide ranging in what they could do.
Liz reviewed the next item which was the request from the Little Colorado River Watershed Coordinating Council requesting participation. Liz noted that the letter and background materials were distributed and suggested that everyone review it and if anyone was interested in participating, it could be addressed at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.